First Impressions of 7/30 debates.

I watched the debate. Before I read any reviews, etc, want to make my own decision.

It’s like the National League Central division. Any team could win.

This isn’t the end. We’re watching a race, and the leaders will fade. Someone in the middle may probably pull ahead at the end.

This round was for the moderates. Delaney, who’s bald and funny looking, did great. But what I liked about him most means nothing politically. He supports the TPP, the trade deal the Obama administration negotiated that linked Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Australia, and others. Offering a carrot to China. The way diplomacy works. Probably the best trade deal ever negotiated, with environmental and labor protection. But with Trump dominating the news, Democrats (starting with Hillary Clinton) ran away from it. Including most of the current crop. So Delaney’s support stood out to me, and means nothing to most.

Hickenlooper got the point across about being a governor. Before Obama, the U.S. hadn’t elected a member of Congress as President as far back as Kennedy. LBJ, Nixon, and G.H.W. Bush were veeps, while Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and G.W. Bush were governors. Before Kennedy a Senator (Stevenson) lost twice to an ex-General. Before that another veep, then governor (FDR.) Hoover was secretary of commerce, Coolidge a governor, Harding a Senator, and Wilson governor.

So over 100 years, three Senators, no one from the House, six governors and four vice-presidents, with Eisenhower and Hoover mixed in. Governors dominated between 1976 and 2008. It’s likely they’ll continue to be popular. Hickenlooper positioned himself to continue this line. He gained the most from the debate, even if he didn’t talk a lot.

Montana Governor Bullock gave a strong performance. His down home style was fine, but he stumbled periodically. One senses that Montana isn’t quite as challenging to govern as other states. Bullock did well enough to become a fixture, but he needs to show he can think on his feet better.

Klobuchar was almost the winner of this debate, but she blew it on racial politics. It plays well in a lot of the country to say that you’re going to help everybody who’s down-trodden, white or black. But it sounds different to black voters, who know that “all lives matter” is code to ignore the extra problems African-Americans suffer. Before you get to the Presidential election, you’ve got to get nominated. African-American voters are too important in getting nominated for Klobuchar’s strategy to work.

The smartest guy in the room, Buttigieg, didn’t stand out. He made some great comments early on, in explaining why constitutional change was needed. “This is a country that passed a constitutional amendment to stop drinking alcohol, then passed another constitutional amendment to start drinking again. We can do constitutional change.” (More or less how I remember it.)

But Buttigieg, like the others, didn’t get health care reform across. The moderates pushed hard against Sanders and Warren’s universal coverage plans, but none explained their alternatives well. Truth is, health reform is hard. Warren kept talking about insurance companies “sucking billions” out of us, channeling Ross Perot’s NAFTA “sucking sound.” There’s a lot of problems with this view, most centrally that Medicare operates through insurance companies. Delaney hit hardest, predicting that a Sanders plan will lead to a two-tier medical system, which you find in places like Brazil or Greece. He’s right: Bernie’s plan will underpay hospitals as much as private insurers overpay, recipe for two tiers.

None bothered to talk about scale, the administrative problem of running a system that would be five times larger than Britain’s NHS, which itself is the fifth largest employer in the world. None talked about budget, only whether wealthy people and companies could pay for it. At minimum, a Sander’s plan would cost $1.8 trillion, almost three times the military budget. That’s my estimate — Rand thinks it’ll cost $3 trillion.

Which is fine, except, once again, what about scale? $1.8 trillion is more than the budgets of all the world’s countries, except China and the US.

The solution is complex, maybe too complex for a debate stage. The one person I hoped to explain it coherently, Buttigieg, didn’t. He seemed like a long distance runner pacing himself in the middle of the pack, not ready to break out.

In summary, Hickenlooper and Klobuchar did well, Governor Bullock and Rep. Delaney made an impact. Congressman Ryan and Mayor Buttigieg had moments. Beto O’Roarke seems lost. Marianne Williamson remains a curiosity. I guess she’s a stand-in for Oprah. Never underestimate the American voter. If they could elect Trump, they can elect Williamson. But that’s not my thing.

And now I’ll look at the press:

USA Today has an article titled “Winners and Losers” but they just report the overall debate. For some reason USA Today dismissed Klobuchar as ineffectual. Let me call that for what it is: sexism.

The NY Times focused on the debate between Delaney and Sanders over health care. It’s review focused on the ability of Sanders and Warren to join forces against moderates, saying they came away with the best viral moments. Pretty meaningless.